Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
URBAN STREAM DAYLIGHTING Case Study Evaluations
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA
2007
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Virginia Water Resources Research Center. The mention of commercial products, trade names, or services does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation.
This report is available online. Hard copies may be obtained from the Virginia Water Resources Research Center for a small fee.
210 Cheatham Hall Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540) 231-5624 FAX: (540) 231-6673 E-mail: [email protected]
Web address: http://www.vwrrc.vt.edu
Stephen Schoenholtz, Director Virginia Tech does not discriminate against employees, students, or applicants on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age, veteran status, national origin, religion, or political affiliation. Anyone having questions concerning discrimination should contact the Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office.
URBAN STREAM DAYLIGHTING Case Study Evaluations
By
Tracy Buchholz
and
Tamim Younos
Virginia Water Resources Research Center 210 Cheatham Hall
Virginia Tech Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0444
July 2007
VWRRC Special Report SR35-2007
1
Table of Contents Abstract 3
Introduction 3
Chapter One: Brief History of Urban Stormwater Management 5 Ancient practices Pre-Industrial Methods Industrial-era Methods Post-Industrial Urban SWM Chapter Two: Introduction to Urban Stream Daylighting 8 The “green infrastructure” movement Definition Benefits of Daylighting Chapter Three: Methods of Research 11 Case Study Reviews Literature Reviews
Personal Interviews Site Visits Chapter Four: Case Study Reviews 13 Creation of a Park Amenity 15 Blackberry Creek, Berkeley, CA Cow Creek, Hutchinson, KS Economic Development / Flood Reduction 17 Arcadia Creek, Kalamazoo, MI Grand River Cap Removal, Jackson, MI Ecological Restoration 19 Darbee Brook, Roscoe, NY Jenkins Creek, Maple Valley, WA Creation of Outdoor Classroom / Campus Amenity 22 Jolly Giant Creek, Arcata CA The Dell, Charlottesville, VA Residential Daylighting 24 West Ox Pasture Brook, Rowley, MA Pimmit Run, McClean, VA Chapter Five: Results and Discussion 25 Implications for Stream Restoration
Cost Analysis Major Conclusions 31 Recommendations for Future Research 35 References 37 Appendix
2
List of Figures Figure 1: Hand drawn image of the “industrial city”. Figure 2: “Wingohocking Creek Sewer Under Construction”. Levine, Adam, “The History of Philadelphia’s Watersheds And Sewers”, Philly H2o. 2005 Figure 3: Piped Stream. “Urban Stream Restoration Techniques”, Center for Watershed Protection. Figure 4: Strawberry Creek daylighting. Pinkham, Richard, “Daylighting: New Life for Buried Streams”, Rocky Mountain Institute. 2005 Figure 5: Blackberry Creek after construction. Urban Creeks Council, www.urbancreeks.org. Figure 6: Arcadia Creek Festival Site. Pinkham, Richard, “Daylighting: New Life for Buried Streams”, Rocky Mountain Institute. 2005 Figure 7: Cow Creek site pre- and post-construction. “Giving New Life to Streams In Rural City Centers”, National Park Service brochure. No date. Figure 8: Grand River Cap Removal during and after construction. Wilcox Associates, www.wilcox.us. Figure 9: Darbee Brook post-daylighting. Pinkham, Richard, “Daylighting: New Life for Buried Streams”, Rocky Mountain Institute. 2005 Figure 10: Jenkins Creek restored stream. Pinkham, Richard, “Daylighting: New Life for Buried Streams”, Rocky Mountain Institute. 2005 Figure 11: Jolly Giant Creek at Arcata High School. Strange, Joshua, personal photograph. Figure 12: Sedimentation basin at “The Dell”. Williams, Kennon, Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects, file photograph. 2004. Figure 13: “Dell” site in 1919. Williams, Kennon, Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects, file photograph. 2004. Figure 14: West Ox Pasture Brook during daylighting. Pinkham, Richard, “Daylighting: New Life for Buried Streams”, Rocky Mountain Institute. 2005
3
Abstract Emerging opinions held by resource planners, engineers, ecologists, environmental scientists and
landscape architects who specialize in natural systems design and stream restoration reflect the
overwhelming attitude that the practice of removing streams from buried conditions (known as
‘daylighting’) restores life and health to streams, reduces flooding (especially in urban locations),
saves money, and creates valuable public spaces.
However, several issues related to the aftermath of stream daylighting projects remain unclear
and warrant further investigation. Some examples include: how long did it take, on average, for
these projects to successfully restore stream health; how and when was said stream health
monitored; when were reductions in municipal maintenance costs realized; how and when did
these projects meet any other intended objectives; were these projects cost-effective and
affordable and how were they paid for.
The objective of the following research is to collect, review, categorize and analyze documents on
case studies of completed stream daylighting projects and to evaluate the ecological – as well as
social - effectiveness of these projects. A secondary objective is to determine which projects included
post-daylighting monitoring such as biological measurements and/or hydrologic and stream structure
analyses to ascertain the long-term impacts of comprehensive stream restoration practices.
Introduction Twenty first century America is approaching a turning point in its urban stormwater management
system. This turning point is precipitated by the deterioration of industrial-era pipes that were built
to capture stormwater runoff and contain streams and creeks that interrupted the dense
development patterns of the 19th century. The turn-of-the-century engineering that made rapid
land development possible in communities across the country is now failing and creating a host of
present-day ecological problems that cannot be remedied simply by replicating the same outdated
technology. Unfortunately, the vision held by many contemporary municipalities is to replace this
underground infrastructure system indefinitely.
4
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, though, the traditional view of urban streams not the
only vision available for community leaders. With emerging trends in environmental awareness
and stewardship, it is possible to imagine and ultimately build a more holistic future for American
cities and their now-invisible waterways. The newly emerging science of urban stream daylighting
is a distinctly valuable and viable tool in such a future. When added to the arsenal of other low-
impact “green infrastructure” technologies, stream daylighting offers multiple and often
simultaneous engineering, economic, ecological, and social benefits.
Even though daylighting is often considered a better option than leaving streams buried in
underground pipes, several post-construction issues related to stream daylighting remain unclear.
Examples of these unresolved questions include but are not limited to: how long did it take, on
average, for these projects to successfully restore stream health; how and when was said stream
health determined; how often has the stream been monitored and what are the monitoring
objectives; how and when did these projects meet any other intended objectives (such as
expanding environmental awareness and education programs); were these projects cost-effective
and affordable; and how were they paid for.
The following research begins by exploring the basic history of urban stormwater management in
the United States and how its early expression continues to shape today’s decisions regarding the
treatment of streams in built environments. The newly emerging technology of stream daylighting
is then explored through case study reviews to evaluate it as a tool for restoring natural water
systems in built environments, and to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of this method as
a “green infrastructure” tool.
5
Brief History of Urban Stormwater Management The link between human settlement and the control of water flow in those settlements dates back
at least 4,000 years. “Sites excavated in the Indus Valley and in Punjab show that bathrooms and
drains were common in Indian cities 4 millennia ago…Even in two millennia B.C., the Greeks and
Egyptians had adequate supplies of drinking water for their cities, drained streets, had bathrooms
in their houses and, in Crete, water flushing arrangements for toilets” (James, 1998).
Earthenware pipes were used before 1500 B.C. and some pipes in Mesopotamian cities from that
era are still in working order.
In European and American cities prior to the mid-
1800’s, small neighborhood grids allowed for the
management of water with a localized supply
and treatment approach that included collecting
rainwater in cisterns and designing useful
channels in narrow roads and alleys. However,
when the industrial revolution came to full force
and it was no longer possible to manage city
water flow using pre-industrial methods. “The
much greater quantities of water needed…as
well as the increased stormwater from the larger urban area generated the need for new
technology, new management processes and new urban form. The industrial city had many new
sources of waste that it could not manage” (Newman, 2000).
As rapid urban expansion took place, concern about pollution in public drinking water led to placing
thousands if not millions of miles of creeks and rivers into pipes. For instance, if a town’s industrial
and human wastes were dumped into a river, public health risks grew along with the town. Many
communities dug trenches to contain these streams during flooding, or buried the streams in pipes
underground to avoid associated health risks (National Park Service). Simultaneously, pristine water
sources were captured to prevent them from becoming contaminated and to carry drinking water into
cities, while other streams were deliberately converted into sewer channels to efficiently remove
human waste. “Cities that were developed before the automobile arrived were created in dense
Figure 1. Hand drawn image of the “industrial city”
6
patterns. For them, stormwater created problems. Impossibly muddy streets and compromised
sanitation prompted engineers of the time to develop systems of underground pipes to carry the
waste water…to adjacent rivers” (Wenk and Gregg, 24).
A critical symbiosis emerged as a result of this
technology: the link between burying streams and creeks
and the rise of automobile-oriented cities. This is a very
important connection, because the culverting of surface
water channels necessitated filling in extensive valleys
with many tons of fill dirt, a leveling process that was
done in advance of urban expansion to accommodate
vehicular traffic. “Once the streams were buried
underground, the towns also found it easier to grow.
They built streets, housing, and industrial plants over the buried streams. And the public health
problems also disappeared--at least for awhile” (National Park Service).
“Building sewers in advance of development…gave engineers freedom in their
designs….especially in areas of the city where the rectangular grid system of streets prevailed”
(Levine, 2005). By placing water systems underground, adequate sewage removal was achieved,
large swaths of terrain were conveniently flattened, street grids were laid out, and real estate
parcels were neatly divided and quickly sold. This approach appeared to solve a wide range of
problems believed to be caused by natural water in urban environments.
Sadly, development patterns have changed since then but the
management approach toward urban streams has not. Many of
today’s urban stormwater management systems are replications
of the ones that emerged in the 19th century. According to author
Gary Strang, in contemporary cities the hydrology of the place is
still largely ignored. “Drainage systems have been put
underground unnecessarily or channelized with concrete,
erasing the visual and spatial logic of the region” (Strang, Theory, 223). According to Richard
Pinkham of the Rocky Mountain Institute, most urban dwellers have no idea that streams run
Figure 2. Wingohocking Creek Sewer under construction, 1909
Figure 3. Piped Stream
7
underneath their feet (Pinkham, 55). The early engineering efforts have proven successful at wiping
water literally off the map.
More importantly, “…many towns and cities are beginning to think differently about the streams buried
under their streets. For some towns, the pipes that encase the streams have rusted and must be
replaced. For other towns, the volume of water flowing into the underground pipes has increased, and
now, during winter storms, the pipes back up and water overflows onto streets and other places”
(National Park Service). In a post-modern context it is likely that so-called traditional methods for
confining streams and stormwater are no longer valid. The “old” system may have worked
temporarily to satisfy the needs of human settlement at the time, but it is argued that piping streams is
no longer a desirable scenario. The act of making sub/urban water systems visible again is becoming
a viable design and engineering alternative (Brown and Schueler, 2004).
8
Introduction to Daylighting “No single park, no matter how large and how well designed, would provide the citizens with the
beneficial influences of nature…A connected system of parks and parkways is manifestly far more
complete and useful” – Frederick Law Olmsted
At the turn of the century, famous landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted held a vision of
community development that was supported by wildlife biology and landscape ecology experts.
Plants, animals, and ecosystem processes must be part of a network of protected natural areas in
order to thrive (State Environmental Resource Center). The concept of “green infrastructure” was
only just emerging in the midst of the Industrial Revolution, but it would take another hundred
years to be fully defined. Today, it is considered “an interconnected network of green space that
protects natural ecosystem values and functions, and provides associated benefits to human
populations” (State Environmental Resource Center). It is a post-industrial conservation approach
that considers ecological needs within the context of human activities.
Urban stream “daylighting" is one manifestation of green
infrastructure. It attempts to address the complex and dynamic
aquatic processes at work in streams surrounded by human
development. As attitudes toward surface water in urban
environments change over time, daylighting perhaps embodies the
most radical expression of this revolution. “Laws and programs in
many nations are producing measurable improvements in water
quality. Policy makers, engineers, and builders increasingly
recognize the value of maintaining natural drainage patterns and
stream channels in new development. And in some places, people
are regrading and revegetating mangled stream channels to restore their functions and beauty”
(Pinkham, IV).
Stream daylighting is a relatively new tool, however. “The daylighting of Strawberry Creek at a
park in Berkeley, California took place in 1984. While other projects, such as in Napa, California
and Urbana, Illinois re-exposed creeks in the 1970s, the Strawberry Creek project is widely
considered the archetype of daylighting” (Pinkham, IV). The term ‘daylighting’ is often unfamiliar to
Figure 4. Strawberry Creek daylighting, 1984
9
most people, who confuse it with bringing daylight into the interior of a room or building. “The term
describes projects that deliberately expose some or all of the flow of a previously covered river,
creek, or stormwater drainage” (Pinkham, IV). In short, daylighting projects usually remove a
stream from an underground pipe and restore the waterway to open air.
Given that many post-industrial waterways are now in pipes underground, why would it be
considered worthwhile to dig up a culvert and restore its original surface stream? There are many
motivations and objectives: ecology, economics, education, and aesthetics. The most frequent
justifications for removing buried streams from their pipes are ecological ones, a trend which
supports the concept of daylighting as a function of green infrastructure. It is recognized that
stream daylighting can improve riparian habitat and water quality along newly created stream
banks and reduce flood impacts by increasing storage capacity over that of a culvert (Pinkham,
IV). It can potentially reduce the urban “heat island effect” and reduce greenhouse gases by
increasing tree canopy cover (Williams, 2006).
Economically, “many communities are finding that the costs associated with ‘daylighting’ a stream can
be less than designing new pipes and re-burying the stream” (National Park Service). Daylighted
streams can increase property values and business investment opportunities in stream
redevelopment zones, add intrinsically valuable public open space to dense urban communities, and
reduce municipal budgets by replacing deteriorating culverts with open streams that are easier to
maintain and repair (Pinkham, IV; Williams, 2006).
Stream daylighting offers psychological benefits as well. “In many ways these streams are a
metaphor for the way we have ‘buried’ our connection with nature. Daylighting these streams
restores not only natural ecological processes, but…it can restore a sense of place and the natural
importance of water even in the most urban settings” (Williams, quoting Jessica Hall, 2006).
“In the past decade daylighting activity has steadily increased across the United States” (Pinkham,
IV). There are underlying assumptions about daylighting, however, and they influence attitudes
and decisions regarding their long-term impacts on streams. Aside from the potential benefits
stated above, most people instinctively think that a body of water flowing on earth’s surface is
better than having it in a pipe. But the science of daylighting is not necessarily the same thing as
10
stream restoration. While the two commonly go hand-in-hand as objectives of daylighting, it is not
necessarily true that bringing a previously buried stream back to the surface will restore it
ecologically. Numerous stream daylighting projects have been undertaken since the mid-1980’s
in order to improve ecological function of their respective streams. But it is not known if these
projects actually restored anything or how long it took for them to do so. Did communities conduct
follow-up monitoring to confirm claims of restoration or flood reduction? If reducing municipal
maintenance costs was one of the project goals (by daylighting instead of replacing pipes), when
were cost-savings realized? The following case study reviews attempt to answer the above
questions and to evaluate the social and ecosystem benefits provided by stream daylighting.
11
Methods of Research The methods used to research completed stream daylighting projects included case study reviews,
literature reviews, personal interviews and site visits. Case study reviews were chosen as the
primary research method due to the relatively limited number of publications about stream
daylighting. While there is more than sufficient literature available related to stream ecology,
environmental hydrology, and stream restoration, there is much less literature written specifically
about the art and science of stream daylighting. Therefore, case study documentation is most likely
the best source of information about the practice.
Additionally, they offer opportunities to compare design methods, technical challenges and solutions,
and successes and failures to find common threads that might be applied to future projects with
similar parameters. Investigations of the case studies will include a discussion of how many projects
stated ecological objectives versus aesthetic ones, how effectively the projects met their stated
objectives, how long it took the projects to do so, and whether or not they are currently being
monitored.
The literature review specific to daylighting was considered equally as important as the case study
reviews, however due to the relatively small amount published it is composed almost entirely of
journal articles, newspaper and magazine articles, and stream restoration agency manuals which
lightly touch upon the subject.
A few interviews were conducted either in person or via telephone or email where it was necessary to
fill in additional information relating to budget breakdowns, project objectives and design intent, and
whether or not any post-completion monitoring took place.
Where possible, site visits to daylighted streams were conducted to view, date, and photograph the
results. This included a tour of “The Dell” on the campus of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
Virginia in July 2006. A “visit” to Blackberry Creek in Berkeley, California took place in the form of a
video tour from Ann Riley’s “Urban Stream Restoration” video (Nolte Media, 1998).
12
CASE STUDY REVIEWS
13
Case Study Reviews The case study reviews involved a total of 19 completed projects selected from across the United
States (Appendix A). The projects represent a wide range of political, economic, hydrologic, and
geographic issues. Some were small backyard projects that cost only a few thousand dollars to
implement while others involved the redesign of several city blocks and cost millions of dollars to
design and build. Some projects were meant to restore fish habitat while others created urban parks
for human benefit. Despite such apparent contrasts, similarities were found among them and were
categorized to facilitate the comparison process.
Two important considerations explored in this research are: 1) the extent of any pre-daylighting
hydrologic studies conducted on each restored reach and; 2) subsequent post-daylighting monitoring
efforts. If the claim is made that stream daylighting serves ecological restoration and/or green
infrastructure purposes, then what hydrologic studies were performed to ensure the new stream’s
hydraulic success, and what monitoring parameters were established to verify if in fact the daylighted
streams accomplished ecological objectives?
From the total number of case studies, five basic categories were created based on noticeable trends
in their stated goals. However, it is important to emphasize that multiple objectives were often
achieved simultaneously within each project and category.
CASE STUDY CATEGORIES Creation of a Park Amenity
Economic Development / Flood Reduction
Ecological Restoration
Creation of an Outdoor Classroom / Campus Amenity
Residential Daylighting
14
A description of each category will precede the relevant case studies within it. Within each category,
two detailed case studies are presented, one with the largest project costs and daylighted lengths and
one with the smallest project costs and daylighted lengths (not necessarily in that order). A
discussion about the unique features and outcomes of each highlighted project will follow.
Separately, each highlighted case study will be presented as a large pull-out sheet that will include its
project name, location, daylighted length, important dates, key contacts, and project budget. A small
introductory section will provide a background for the project, along with pre-daylighting hydrologic
considerations, channel design elements, results, and post-daylighting monitoring methods.
15
Creation of a Park Amenity The designation of a category specifically related to the creation of park space appears at first to be
elusive. Most if not all stream daylighting efforts involve the construction of a physical space
accessible to (and often paid for by) the public, thus a ‘park’. The strength of embedding a stream
daylighting initiative within a larger park design is that the public will often more readily embrace the
idea of a new stream despite technical challenges or perceptions of danger because the trade-off – a
new community park – is considered a valuable amenity (Pinkham, V; Williams, 2006).
The first example, Blackberry Creek in Berkeley,
California, stands out because it is located on the
property of an elementary school. It is not uncommon to
encounter public resistance to stream daylighting
proposals when the physical safety of young children is a
concern. However, in this instance the idea for
daylighting the creek came directly from PTA members
themselves, and was implemented in combination with a
new Tot – Lot Park design (Pinkham, 22). Children were
an integral consideration in Blackberry Creek’s revival, as
was the desire to provide a better park for the neighborhood.
The second example is Cow Creek running through
Avenue A Park in Hutchinson, Kansas. Originally, Cow
Creek ran lengthwise directly under Avenue A, which
more or less acted as a bridge over the buried stream.
The “bridge” needed to be replaced but turned out to be
too costly and reconstruction would have interrupted
downtown business traffic for up to three years (Pinkham,
22). City engineers decided to reroute Cow Creek
altogether and fill in the old streambed, rebuild the road,
and completely avoid a bridge (National Park Service ). Figure 6. Cow Creek site pre- and post-
construction
Figure 5. Blackberry Creek after construction
16
The daylighted 800-foot-long stream section is now the centerpiece of a new park that includes a
walking path right next to the channel, a grassy amphitheater and stage for shows, and a large water
play area with fountains fed by city water (Pinkham, 45).
Despite differences in size, geographic location, and budgets, both projects are considered
successful because popular new parks were built in conjunction with the daylighting effort. In terms
of stream restoration and function, though, the newly created channels do not automatically entail
ecological outcomes from the standpoint of either water quality or aquatic habitat improvement.
While Blackberry Creek has managed to contain flood events without problems (Gerson et al., 2005),
it is still a heavily controlled channel with gabion walls on either stream bank (Riley video tour, Nolte
Media, 1998). Cow Creek is even less ecological because the stream is surrounded on all sides
except the top by concrete. Thus, “success” defined by increased human use in new parks is not
intrinsically linked with success for other species.
17
Economic Development / Flood Reduction
Flooding in present-day urban and suburban communities is often attributed to storm drains and
culverts that are old and collapsing (particularly in older urban neighborhoods and business districts).
Often, they were too small when installed and thus cannot handle increased amounts of impervious
surface. Depending on the economic viability of the community, flood damage can remain in place
for long periods of time and contribute to - or exacerbate - urban decay. Stream daylighting projects
have therefore been undertaken to reduce urban flooding and to promote subsequent urban
revitalization and redevelopment efforts.
Arcadia Creek Festival Place in Kalamazoo, Michigan
and Grand River Cap Removal in Jackson, Michigan
were both undertaken to reduce impacts caused by the
culverting of their respective waterways. In the case of
Arcadia Creek, daylighting portions of the stream was
an integral part of the city’s overall 13-block
redevelopment plan (Pinkham, 32). However, the
Grand River Cap Removal project led to unexpected
business development and investment along the newly
opened waterway.
Arcadia Creek is especially noteworthy because it represents one of the most highly urbanized
locations known to be daylighted. It involved the acquisition and demolition of property, including an
existing public parking lot, to make room for the daylighted channel and stormwater pond. It is
considered a successful project because the resulting “stream” and “pond” have worked very well to
mitigate the urban flooding problems Kalamazoo had been facing for years. Downtown businesses
no longer have to pay flood insurance, there is protection from a 500-year storm event, and the city’s
floodplain map was completely redrawn (Pinkham, 33). Other financial benefits have since
manifested: the site now generates approximately $12 million annually in festival and concert fees,
which has more than paid for the $7.5 million price tag associated with the park’s creation as well as
its $50,000-per-year maintenance costs (Pinkham, 33).
Figure 7. Arcadia Creek Festival Site
18
On the other hand, the Grand River Cap Removal project is noteworthy because it was undertaken in
response to a series of deaths. The cause: children being swept into the box culvert, thus the Grand
River culvert was deemed an “acute health hazard” (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality).
The primary goal was to remove the culvert (or “cap”) and make it possible for a person to escape the
river if necessary. After it was completed, the relatively short 300-foot-long daylighted section began
to attract commercial and business development along its newly-designated ‘waterfront’ stretch near
downtown Jackson (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality).
Overall both projects are considered
successful because they met their primary
objectives. Due to the highly urbanized nature
of both locations, though, final designs for both
streams are very controlled water channels
and concrete-lined basins. The resulting
“waterways” do not resemble streams per se,
but rather canals with surrounding parkland
and new businesses. As with the creation of a
park amenity, in terms of ecological function
neither project guarantees a holistic
environmental outcome.
Figure 8. Grand River Cap Removal
during and after construction
19
Ecological Restoration A frequent assertion about stream daylighting is that it is an ecological solution to an engineering
problem. This is often true in densely built urban environments where underground pipes have
removed streams from their natural systems in order to accommodate large areas of impervious
surface. However, the phenomenon of stream burial is not restricted to dense city grids. As post-
World War II development patterns spread to areas outside urban cores and fringes, so, too, did the
construction practices associated with them. Thus, in sprawling suburban neighborhoods and
business districts the act of placing streams into pipes and culverts to make way for houses and
roads has carried on.
Fortunately, the nature of suburban development patterns is different from existing urban ones in that
the land area cleared for this settlement style is large and not densely built upon. This leads to
opportunities to daylight streams with more physical room to achieve ecological objectives, such as
restoring fish passage, improving aquatic habitat, and improving water quality. Rather than restrict a
newly daylighted stream to concrete canals and lawn-edged stormwater basins, stream daylighting in
open, suburban locales can actually provide opportunities to recreate floodplains, meandering stream
channels, wider and more diverse riparian planting buffers close to the stream’s edge, and in-stream
habitat structures like large woody debris and log revetments.
Darbee Brook in Roscoe, New York is emphasized because
it was a small, ecologically-based project that worked
successfully to reintroduce fish passage to a famous fishing
stream in the Catskills (Pinkham, 36). The site was on a
portion of a public middle school that had culverted Darbee
Brook in the 1960s to make room for larger playing fields.
Over time, the culvert subsided and caused damage to the
fields it was intended to protect. It finally failed in the winter
of 1996 after a significant rain / thaw event. The project
involved a large government agency for funding (FEMA), along with the New York Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the independent organization Trout Unlimited. A new 160-
foot-long open channel was built to divert Darbee Brook from its culvert, and the old pipe was
removed and replaced with fill dirt to stabilize the playing fields (Pinkham, 36).
Figure 9. Darbee Brook post-daylighting
20
Follow-up monitoring has taken place on the new stream channel and “…electrofishing samples have
documented fish entry into the system from the main river as well as utilization of the opened channel
by a diverse assembly of aquatic species” (Pinkham, 37). According to DEC consultant Ed Van Put,
“This was the first time we could take a stream out of a culvert and make it live again” (Pinkham, 37).
An added bonus was its price tag: it was considered far less expensive to daylight the brook at
$9,000 than to replace the existing damaged culvert which was estimated to cost up to $50,000
(Pinkham, 37).
Contrasted with Darbee Brook is Jenkins Creek in Maple Valley, Washington. The daylighting and
restoration of Jenkins Creek was part of a comprehensive county-wide watershed management plan
targeting the Soos Creek basin southeast of Seattle (Pinkham, 40). The creek flows from a county
park in the Lake Wilderness area, yet development had still managed to alter it: two sections ran in
underground pipes since the 1950s, negatively impacting water quality and preventing fish passage
to a nearby lake.
The watershed management plan emphasized the need to repair and protect aquatic habitat along
Jenkins Creek; a fish habitat survey identified salmonids downstream as well as fish passage barriers
along the stream’s length (Pinkham, 40). Daylighting Jenkins Creek occurred in two phases at two
locations: an 800-foot-long channel in the Lake Wilderness Golf Course and a 700-foot-long channel
in Lake Wilderness Park (which ran previously underneath a parking lot there). An additional 500 feet
of existing surface stream was also restored in this phase.
Both phases required the recreation of a floodplain
and designing extra flow capacity into the stream
channels themselves, in anticipation of future
watershed development (Pinkham, 41). Other
ecologically-based structures included bioswales that
were put in place near roads and parking lots to
intercept pollutants and sediment, and a berm
designed above the golf course floodplain to capture
nutrient-laden runoff. Gravel bars placed in the creek to divert flow during construction were allowed
to remain in place and supply material to the new streambed (Pinkham, 41).
Figure 10. Jenkins Creek restored stream
21
In the case of Jenkins Creek, extensive public meetings were conducted during development of the
overall watershed management plan, including two public meetings just for daylighting Jenkins Creek.
After completion, a public education campaign was undertaken in single-family neighborhoods near
Jenkins Creek to teach homeowners proper maintenance practices along the newly restored stream
corridor, such as not to fertilize near the creek’s edge or to dump lawn clippings and other debris into
the stream (Pinkham, 41).
Overall, both of these projects represent successful efforts to restore the inherent ecological functions
originally present in both streams. Monitoring has taken place at both locations and has revealed that
fish species are indeed returning to the streams, and that vegetation has successfully re-established
itself. These are examples where intended ecological objectives were met.
22
Creation of an Outdoor Classroom / Campus Amenity
It is not uncommon to find biological and ecological science studies in American school curricula.
Basic knowledge of how the earth’s natural systems work together and overlap one another is
considered a critical part of any students’ overall education. The desire to explore these inter-
relationships is being actualized with greater frequency in the construction of outdoor classrooms on
school campuses throughout the country. Students are then able to engage with different
ecosystems on a regular basis, learn how to identify plant and animal life, and to document small-
and large-scale patterns in systems ranging from classroom terrariums to the weather.
One component of the trend toward outdoor education is the study of aquatic ecology.
Understanding how ponds and streams work, and the life they support (including human life), is a
common goal of many outdoor science classrooms. In some cases, stream daylighting on school
grounds has lead to the advancement of these types of programs. In other cases, simply revealing
waterways that were previously buried reconnected students and residents to a larger living system
that had been forgotten about.
Jolly Giant Creek in Arcata, CA is a successful
example of daylighting a stream on school property to
reclaim its function and aquatic habitat specifically for
students to study. The project was spearheaded by
Arcata High School’s biology professor and assisted
by graduate students in the fisheries department of
nearby Humboldt State University.
Pre-design hydrologic studies were carried out by university students, followed by channel and pond
designs meant to optimize aquatic habitat and natural channel function. Not only did the completed
project provide the outdoor classroom intended by the biology professor, but Jolly Giant Creek has
become a valuable new public space and pedestrian greenway (Pinkham, 15). Students participated
directly in the daylighting project, and today they continue to monitor the stream and ponds for
resident native salmon, trout, and redds (Pinkham, 15). They also use the new greenway as a path
on their way to and from school.
Figure 11. Jolly Giant Creek at Arcata High School
23
In the case of “The Dell” on the campus of the
University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia,
the goal was not to restore a fully-functioning
stream ecosystem so much as it was to reclaim
the history of the site as a former stream
corridor and pond. In so doing, architects,
stream specialists, and engineers aimed to
capture sediment and partial flood waters that
might otherwise end up downstream, while
providing a newly defined community space on
campus that brought people in closer contact
with the natural settings surrounding the university (Williams, 2006). By allocating nearby ball fields
as floodplains and creating a large sedimentation basin surrounded by native riparian plantings,
designers successfully restored the importance of water in the most urban settings and reversed the
loss of “cultural space” (Williams, 2006).
The results of these two projects are a reasonably well-blended representation of the definition of “green
infrastructure”, in that they attempt to promote ecological function while addressing the existing human
context. The physical design of the Dell in particular was deliberately given straight edges on two sides
to symbolically include the built environment surrounding the basin as an influencing design factor. Jolly
Giant Creek represents the more ecological outcome of the two examples, because it was undertaken
with ecology and habitat in mind. The Dell is less so, but has retained successful flood mitigation and
sediment deposit functions as intended.
Figure 12. Sedimentation basin at “The Dell” pre- and post-construction
Figure 13. “Dell” site in 1919
24
Residential Daylighting
Many streams run in pipes beneath suburban residential neighborhoods across the country. The vast
number of private properties in the United States offers a wide range of opportunities to engage in
“backyard” daylighting. However, natural concerns about costs and technical challenges leaves this
category the smallest of the five specified in this report. Literature revealed only two case studies of
daylighted streams on private residential property, both very different from each other.
The first example is West Ox Pasture Brook in
Rowley, Massachusetts. This was a very small
(85 linear feet) residential daylighting project
undertaken to restore the stream and its riparian
habitat near the location of an old septic system.
The home owners needed a lot of support during
the design and construction process of the
daylighted stream. They received substantial aid
– from permitting to design to funding - from
various groups such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Partners for Wildlife, and the Parker River Clean Water Association (Pinkham, 30). Despite
the concerns of the owners, they are reportedly happy to have the small stream in their backyard
now, and did not pay anything toward the costs of daylighting it.
The second example is located in McClean, Virginia at the bottom of a forested, 17-acre watershed
that feeds into Pimmit Run. A small ephemeral brook that ran through the top of the property had
been placed into a small pipe that overflowed during large storms (Pinkham, 46). A landscape
architect was responsible for designing an aesthetically pleasing alternative to this pipe while still
accommodating large storm flows without damaging the house or eroding uphill soils. Ultimately, the
design of this daylighted stream remained fairly controlled in runnels, vegetated swales, and new
pipes running under the driveway. An impervious liner had to be installed under the more naturalized
log check dam pools above the house to prevent low flows from disappearing in dry weather, thus
preventing ground water recharge (Pinkham, 46). This particular project was aptly described as
“micro-daylighting” by the Rocky Mountain Institute (Pinkham, 46). No visual documentation is
currently available.
Figure 14. West Ox Pasture Brook during daylighting
25
Results and Discussion A total of 19 completed case study projects were reviewed during this research and are listed in
detail in Appendix A. Eight projects were from the West coast, six from the Midwest, three from
the Southeast, and two from the Northeast. California and Washington had the highest and
second highest numbers of case studies, respectively. From the total, eleven projects were
undertaken with either primary or secondary goals to create a park for human use and enjoyment.
This total increases to twelve if Phase I of Jenkins Creek in Maple Valley, WA is included, as it
was incorporated into an existing golf course. The desire to create an attractive amenity for
people led to “success” being defined by the number of people who used the site after project
completion, rather than by other more ecological parameters.
Only four projects were initiated strictly to improve water quality and/or improve fish passage and
habitat within the daylighted stream section. A fifth project, Jolly Giant Creek in Arcata, CA was
simultaneously an ecological restoration and outdoor classroom endeavor. Thus, out of all the
projects, almost 75% focused on long-term benefits to humans while only 25% were concerned
with aquatic life and water quality. The projects aimed at providing amenities for people were by
and large successful in doing so.
Of all the projects, only one, Jenkins Creek in Maple Valley, WA required post-daylighting
monitoring which consisted of vegetation counts, stream structure reviews, and fish species
counts every year for three years after construction. Unofficial monitoring was reported at four
other sites: Jolly Giant Creek, Blackberry Creek, Darbee Brook, and Valley Creek. Most, if not all,
unofficial monitoring was conducted by local elementary, high school, and university students.
The evaluation criteria typically used is limited to visual fish species identification and counting,
visual plant identification and counting, and other species identification such as birds, snakes,
insects, and amphibians. If there are greater numbers of species and/or more of any one
particular species - and the plants are alive - then the project is usually deemed “successful”.
None of the daylighted sites have recorded any negative impacts of the restoration work; all are
reported to be in good condition and doing well.
In the case of Blackberry Creek, though, post-project appraisals were conducted in addition to
local monitoring in 1996 and 2000. In 2005, three graduate students from the University of
26
California, Berkeley surveyed the longitudinal profile and two cross-sections of the creek, and
identified a 10-year storm event that occurred in 2002. They found that the channel’s flood
capacity and gradient appeared stable even though the channel may have migrated within the
high bankfull. (Gerson et al., 2005)
In one particular instance, a post-daylighting report indicates positive improvements to
downstream ecosystems, but it is not clearly documented. At Phalen Creek in St. Paul, MN, it is
stated that “when the Stroh’s brewery closed and its cooling-tower discharges ceased in 1998, the
ratio of biocide-treated effluent to creek water and stormwater dropped….Macroinvertebrates and
amphibians have recently been observed” (Pinkham, 35). Additionally, it is written that “Local
environmentalists…believe the [new] stream and pond system captures some nutrients and other
urban pollutants” (Pinkham, 35). However, no additional information is provided to verify these
assertions, such as who performed the monitoring to conclude that macroinvertebrates had
returned to the stream or that microscopic nutrient loads had been reduced. Thus it is hard to say
with confidence that this particular site experienced any quantifiable improvements due to stream
daylighting.
As stated earlier daylighting a stream is not necessarily the same thing as stream restoration. Ideally,
though, the same types of preparatory measures used in stream restoration would be followed prior
to restoring a buried stream to the open air. “Comprehensive restoration applications require careful
consideration of current and future storm discharges, floodplain elevations, infrastructure,
encroachment, and erosion potential” (Brown and Schueler, 19). A small number of projects (5)
reported conducting hydrologic studies prior to construction, while many others simply designed by
“trial and error”. The most common forms of pre-design hydrologic studies were upstream meander
and width measurements and modeling of hydraulic events for bankfull discharge during storm
events. Designs done by “trial and error” often used quick reviews of aerial photos or reference
reaches as guides for stream channel placement.
And yet all of the projects documented a range of channel intervention from gently re-grading existing
banks to installing rock weirs, flow diverters, and meander bends, constructing new channel
geometries, removing seawalls, and recreating floodplains. Such interventions are known to
potentially alter a stream’s existing hydrologic processes, which is why they’re utilized. However, a
27
relatively small proportion of projects (26%) actually took those processes into account prior to
designing and constructing the new stream and its related ponds, wetlands, and floodplains. Without
frequent and regular monitoring of these sites, it is difficult to ascertain whether or not any lasting
harm may have actually been done to the existing stream system by implementing designs that were
not fully researched and modeled prior to construction.
It is also not necessarily true that bringing a previously buried stream back to the surface will fully
restore its ecological functions, as asserted by proponents of the practice. The most notable
examples of this are Arcadia Creek in Kalamazoo, MI, Grand River Cap Removal in Jackson, MI
and Cow Creek in Hutchinson, KS. The resulting daylighted “streams” are really not much more
than concrete-lined canals meant to pass water efficiently – and in a controlled fashion – through
urban neighborhoods. There is little possibility for these streams to interact with their
surroundings to replenish ground water levels or provide in-stream aquatic habitat. In fact, the
water table in Arcadia Creek has dropped so low due to a century-long depletion of ground water
(caused by impervious surfaces) that the new “stream” had to be contained or its water level
would disappear into the soil below (Pinkham, 32).
Furthermore, in the Kilgoblin Wetland in Barrington, IL, it is unclear whether or not stream
daylighting was the actual objective. It appears to have been a project intended to create a
wetland by daylighting underground storm sewers, rather than re-establish any sort of stream
channel. Out of a potential 1,800 linear feet that were supposed to be daylighted, only 300 feet
were removed from underground pipes. The rest of the community’s storm sewer lines that were
slated for daylighting were simply replaced with new pipes. The wetland itself is encircled by rip-
rap and tall prairie grasses which have been given a negative cast because “they are not
conducive to picnicking” (Pinkham, 26). Thus it is hard to judge just how effectively this project
met any intended ecological objectives.
Cost Analysis Stream daylighting can be an expensive endeavor due to a range of technical and physical realities.
According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, several “pricey” activities are linked with daylighting:
Technical studies
Design work and permit applications
28
Property acquisition
Excavation and rough grading
Hauling fill
Materials for the stream bed and in-channel structures
Vegetation purchases
Hand labor for final grading and planting
This is an extensive list that actually comprises most, if not all, the aspects of daylighting a stream.
It is difficult to imagine anything included in this breakdown that might be inexpensive. Overall, the
case studies examined in this research revealed certain cost trends depending upon length of
stream daylighted. These trends are depicted in Table 1.
Table 1. Stream Daylighting Average Cost Breakdowns by Length
Small Scale = < 250 linear feet Average length 144 lin. ft. Average cost $9,800 Cost/lin. foot $68.05 Medium Scale = 250 - 1,000 linear feet
Average length 480 lin. ft. Average cost $48,250 Cost/lin. foot $100.50
Large Scale = > 1,000 linear feet Average length 2,287 lin. ft. Average cost $1,857,250 Cost/lin. foot $812.09
The most expensive project completed to date was Arcadia Creek at $7.5 million and 1,550 linear
feet, while the least expensive project was West Ox Pasture Brook at $1,200 and 85 linear feet. A
list of cost breakdowns for selected case studies is presented in Appendix B (general costs for
each of the nineteen case studies are available in Appendix A). In general, the longer the length
daylighted, the higher the costs. Also, the more urban the location, the more expensive the
project became. This was often due to significant physical constraints such as the need to
purchase and/or demolish existing property and to construction costs associated with structures
like concrete channels necessary to contain the new stream near building foundations.
29
Experienced practitioners estimate the costs of daylighting to range from $300 - $1,000 per linear
foot (Pinkham, 10). Kennon Williams, project manager for Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape
Architects (the designers of “The “Dell” at the University of Virginia), places the minimum cost at
$200 per linear foot (Williams, 2006). To date, there is no direct cost comparison available
between installing traditional culverts and stream daylighting to determine which is more cost
effective over a long period of time. Cost estimates for some of the individual components of a
stormwater pipeline system are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Costs of Stormwater Pipeline Components (Source: USEPA)
Material Cost Median diam. 24 inch corrugated metal pipe $30.10 / lin. ft. Median diam. 36 inch reinforced concrete pipe $74.40 / lin. ft. Excavation of clay soil trench at 1:1 ft ratio $7.09 / cu.yd. Bedding costs for trench 24 in. diam.x 4 ft. wide $8.52 / ft. Manhole 4 ft. diam. x 4 ft. deep $1,860.00 / ft. Paving Costs: Prepare and roll subbase > 2500 sq.yd. $ 0.88 / sq. yd. Base course (3 in. crushed stone) $3.39 / sq.yd. Asphalt pavement (3 in. binder course) $5.91 / sq.yd. Asphalt pavement (2 in. wearing course) $4.52 / sq.yd. Curb and gutter (24 in. diam. concrete) $6.95 / lin. ft.
Project longevity is an important factor when comparing the two methods. The material used to
build underground pipes decays over time and in contact with water; as a result, pipes need to be
replaced periodically. Some pipes deteriorate faster than others. In the case of Arcadia Creek in
Kalamazoo, MI, the pipes had been in place for more than 100 years before they started causing
significant winter flooding (Pinkham, 32), whereas at Darbee Brook in Roscoe, NY, the culvert had
been in place only since the 1960s before it began to fail (Pinkham, 36). In contrast, it can be
argued that daylighting a stream – and incurring the associated costs - will take place only once.
An additional justification for stream daylighting is that it has the real potential to reduce costs
associated with flood damage because the new stream will store and convey rain water levels
better than a traditional pipe (Pinkham, 7). Also, any miscalculations of surface stream size can
be recognized and fixed more readily than they can be for an underground, out-of-sight pipe.
30
Currently, there is little information available to facilitate a cost comparison between maintaining a
pipe and maintaining a new stream. In the end, daylighting projects can be expensive, but many
have been completed at lower costs due to donations of services, materials, and volunteer labor
(Pinkham, 10). A list of funding sources by state is provided in Appendix C.
The aspect of time has another facet worth considering. Once a stream is placed into a pipe
underground and the final layer of paving is applied, the project is complete and the objective is
immediately met. But on the opposite end of the spectrum the question remains: what is the
average length of time it takes for daylighted streams to meet their financial objectives? Available
literature provides no definite timeline for these results. From the nineteen case studies reviewed,
the average year of completion was 1994. The earliest known daylighting project was Embarrass
Creek, Urbana, IL in the early 1970s (Pinkham, 28), while the most recent was “The Dell” in
Charlottesville, VA built in 2004 (Williams, 2006). The dominant literature source for the case
studies was “Daylighting: New Life for Buried Streams”, published by the Rocky Mountain Institute
in September, 2000. Thus, subtracting the publication year (2000) from the average daylighting
year (1994) results in a mean length of six years before outcomes can be observed and recorded.
General trends from the case studies, and what they may imply for future daylighting projects, are
discussed in the next chapter. Some of the questions asked at the beginning of this research –
and whether or not the research answers them - will be addressed in the following section.
Note: the costs for the Grand River Cap Removal in Jackson, MI were not included in the total
cost calculations because it was largely a concrete cutting activity rather than a stream restoration
design. However, $62,000 of the $1,100,000 total budget went toward excavation and disposal of
contaminated soils.
31
Major Conclusions The case study evaluations conducted in this research revealed several interesting trends for streams
that have been daylighted to date. Daylighting is indeed “feasible in a variety of situations” (Pinkham,
55), regardless of geography, stream size, hydrologic function, and available funding. Daylighting is
also a new phenomenon under the broader umbrella of stream restoration work; the majority of
known projects in the United States have taken place only in the last ten years, and as of literature
printed in 2000 proposed projects give little or no indication when they might commence.
The most important finding of the case study review was that the majority of projects were not
necessarily undertaken with the specific intent – or outcome – of restoring a stream. This was an
unexpected discovery given that one of the main benefits of daylighting cited by proponents (and thus
a justification for it) is the restoration of ecological function, water quality, aquatic habitat, and riparian
buffers (Pinkham, 55; Williams, 2006; Brown and Schueler, 1). According to Ken Brown and Tom
Schueler of the Center for Watershed Protection, “While all of these objectives are important and
legitimate in urban settings, only a few seek to actually restore stream conditions in an ecological
sense. Indeed, full ecological restoration may be difficult or impossible to achieve in many urban
streams” (Brown and Scheuler, 1).
This was the case for the projects reviewed in this research. At least three-quarters of them set out to
create a public park for human use and enjoyment, and the daylighted stream was just one element
(albeit a key element) of the new park. In that regard, all the projects were deemed “successful”; they
created attractive and valuable spaces that people now use on a regular basis where what stood
before was an empty or derelict lot. But the ecological component seems to be lacking in many of
them. The underlying presumption seems to have been that a surface-level channel was better for
the stream than piping it and that simply exposing it to air and sunlight would automatically improve
its quality with no further intervention required. However, simply placing water at earth’s surface and
rendering it visible again does not necessarily make it healthy, alive, or valuable to species other than
humans (Hession and Wynn, 2006).
As a result, it becomes difficult to determine whether or not ecological functions and water quality
were restored to a given stream reach or how long it took, on average, for daylighting to do so. This
question is intrinsically linked to that of monitoring: if some form of ecological restoration was the
32
goal, how was success defined, what sort of monitoring took place to verify success, and how often
did monitoring occur? The five projects that sought to improve water quality, fish passage, riparian
corridor vegetation and aquatic habitat measured their success using widely variable parameters.
One project, Darbee Brook in Roscoe, NY, took scientific samples of fish species and quantities using
electrofishing techniques (a controversial method due to decreased survival rates of small fish that
come in contact with the mild electro-shock probe). It is unclear whether or not this monitoring was
required or voluntary, or if this sampling method occurred more than once.
The other four projects relied strictly upon visual surveys, species identification, and counting by
trained volunteers and student monitors. With the exception of Jenkins Creek, which retained a
trained technician to conduct follow-up site monitoring for three years after construction, confidence in
other project monitoring results is low due to the unknown amount of training and knowledge
possessed by individual volunteers. Also, it is possible to mistake successful vegetation growth for
in-stream water quality restoration; the pleasant appearance of healthy, full-sized plants just a year
after installation can potentially lead monitors to conclude that the project achieved ecological goals
regardless of actual water sampling results. Only one project, Kilgoblin Wetland in Barrington, IL,
relied on benthic measurements using the Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index after completion to assess
its success (Pinkham, 27). That project was completed in 1995, and its literature was published in
2000; therefore it took less than 5 years for measurable benefits to be detected. In general, though,
most projects that restored some form of naturalized stream channel reported the re-appearance of
fish species, aquatic insects, and successful vegetation establishment less than five years after
completion.
In terms of “green infrastructure” function, it appears that all projects undertaken to reduce urban
flooding problems succeeded in achieving that goal. New stream channels and/or larger open water
canals that replaced failing culverts and deteriorating pipes greatly minimized or removed any
previous stormwater overflows and damage. Downtown Kalamazoo, MI no longer requires
businesses to purchase any sort of flood insurance (Pinkham, 33), while localized flooding at smaller
sites has all but disappeared. The time frame when these results became apparent is not directly
known, but is presumed to have been noticed after the first significant post-project rainfall event.
33
The issue of cost-effectiveness is a relative assessment. One way it can be determined is to
compare it with the costs of replacing pipes and culverts, which is at best an indirect and
incomplete comparison. It is harder still to compare it with the unknown costs of damaging
complex and diverse aquatic ecosystems. Perhaps a better term for evaluation is “affordability”.
In the case of Darbee Brook, which cost $9,000 for a length of 330 linear feet, daylighting proved
to be far more affordable than installing a new culvert (estimated at $45,000 - $50,000). Cow
Creek in Hutchinson, KS was rerouted and daylighted because it was a more affordable option
than building a new bridge and redirecting traffic for three years. The city of Kalamazoo, Michigan
decided to daylight Arcadia Creek despite the $7.5 million price tag because long-term flood
damage to its downtown business district was far more costly. The new park associated with the
daylighted stream generates $12 million each year in concert and activity fees, more than paying
for project costs (Pinkham, 33). In these and other cases reviewed, daylighting definitely helped
revitalize neighborhoods, increase property values, and benefited nearby businesses, thus
justifying the money spent.
Richard Pinkham asserts that “Daylighting can provide multiple benefits—tangible and
intangible—for every dollar expended. These include improvements to the functional values of
waterways and urban stormwater systems through increased hydraulic capacity for flood control,
lowering of water velocities to reduce downstream erosion, removal of water from combined
sewers, improvements to water quality, and more” (Pinkham, 55). In the end, most experts agree
that daylighting can be cost effective compared to the expense of repairing a failing culvert, even if
direct proof of such effectiveness is elusive.
Finally, it is likely that all the projects met their intended educational objectives. Once schoolyard
wetlands and stream corridors were in place students and adults alike began to learn about the
valuable dynamic life systems taking place in them. In the case of Jolly Giant Creek, students
took part in daylighting the stream, grew fish salmonids in class to release in the new stream, and
planted stream bank vegetation. They continue to conduct monitoring every year to evaluate the
health of the system. An additional educational reward: several participants went on to pursue
ecological and biological sciences in college after graduation (Pinkham, 15). This example
validates the argument that daylighting projects foster stewardship of natural resources.
34
The total number of case studies reviewed for this research revealed the following key facts:
Most projects are not undertaken primarily to restore stream health, ecology, function, or
habitat
Most projects are initiated to provide public parks for human use
Ecological restoration efforts vary widely, although they tend to want to improve in-stream
habitat and fish passage
Projects that are undertaken to restore some sort of ecological function often do not
engage in scientific monitoring to evaluate whether or not this goal was obtained over time
Approximately one-quarter of all projects used some form of mathematical hydrologic study
to estimate current stream conditions as well as the effects of building a new stream; the
rest of the projects designed by “trial and error”
Stream daylighting seems to provide significant flood protection and sedimentation control
Stream daylighting has been very successful in promoting outdoor education on school
campuses
The act of rendering a buried and forgotten waterway visible again has a profound impact on
the human psyche. Case studies demonstrated that although the preferred outcome of many
daylighting projects was to improve the environment, the reality was that most efforts focused
attention on aesthetic appeal and public enjoyment of the new waterway. These were
considered by far the most popular and “successful” projects according to the literature. Thus,
by revealing pieces of the system that have been covered over, daylighting projects to date
have displayed greater potential to improve human understanding and awareness of larger
systems in the environment rather than improving the environment per se. As defined by
“green infrastructure”, stream daylighting is indeed a very effective strategy for uniting natural
and human ecologies within the built context. By promoting a change in attitudes and values
toward water resources, perhaps stream daylighting can prevent future burial of other surface
water systems. This would be the ultimate act of ecological restoration.
“With care and attention, streams and people across the country can reap tremendous
rewards from this new ambition to resurrect America’s lost waterways.” – Richard Pinkham
35
Recommendations for Future Research
It remains unclear from the case study literature when stream daylighting is not recommended.
Further research into prohibitive costs, site conditions, and even political struggles and public
resistance would help clarify situations in which daylighting a stream is not a viable alternative.
A few items were found in various pieces of literature, but none were presented in detail. The Rocky
Mountain Institute simply says “Not every buried waterway is a good candidate for daylighting. There
are many excellent technical, economic, institutional, and other reasons many buried waterways
should not be unearthed” (Pinkham, 55). But there is no elaboration is to what those considerations
might be. In “The History of Philadelphia’s Watersheds and Sewers” Adam Levine briefly states that
daylighting older combined sewer systems would be prohibitively expensive “…since it would mean
building a completely separate system of pipes to carry the sewage” (Levine, 2005).
The presence of contaminated soils can affect the candidacy of a stream for daylighting. Tanner
Springs Park in Portland, OR was slated to include a daylighted section of Tanner Creek. However, it
was discovered that a century of industrial contaminants from railroad sidings remained on site
(Abbate, 2006). The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality required the contaminated soil to
be capped, sealing it off from any infiltration that would degrade nearby waterways. Landscape
architects working on the project therefore decided to keep Tanner Creek in culverts underground
(Abbate, 2006).
A final consideration for the viability of daylighting involves the stream’s health. The Center for
Watershed Protection rates the support capabilities of streams using percentage of impervious
surface cover as an indicator. “Non-supporting streams range between 25 and 60% subwatershed
impervious cover [IC] and no longer support their designated uses, as defined by hydrology, channel
stability habitat, water quality or biological indicators. Subwatersheds at the lower end of the IC range
(25 to 40% IC) may show promise for partial restoration, but are so dominated by hydrologic and
water quality stresses that they normally cannot attain pre-development biological conditions, without
continued maintenance. Under some circumstances, streams in the upper range of the non-
supporting category (40 to 60% IC) may show some potential for partial biological restoration, but the
primary restoration strategy is often to meet community objectives such as protecting infrastructure,
creating a more natural stream corridor and preventing bank erosion” (Brown and Scheuler, 5). As a
36
result, situations involving non-supporting streams may have to rule out daylighting for ecological
objectives altogether.
A second recommendation for future research is to follow proposed projects and evaluate them using
the same criteria applied to completed projects. This would be done in an effort to see if they in what
ways they vary from existing ones and whether or not they meet their intended objectives. The
proportion of proposed projects is higher in the Northeast as opposed to the proportion of completed
projects in the West. Will there be differences in project designs and outcomes as a result of
geographic and/or hydrologic differences? Imminent demonstrations worth following will be Indian
Creek in Caldwell, Idaho (on the verge of being daylighted as of 2006), and Rocky Branch Creek on
the campus of North Carolina State University in Raleigh, NC (daylighting is part of a larger campus
greenway and stream restoration project).
Accompanying the evaluation of future projects should be research into the process by which permits
are obtained for comprehensive stream restoration projects, including stream daylighting.
Understanding the technological requirements, design studies, and application fees associated with
removing a buried stream from its underground pipe may shed light on the constraints that may
initially dampen enthusiasm for such an endeavor.
Ultimately, the ideal scenario is to prevent streams from being buried in the first place. A number of
communities have stream protection ordinances that discourage the culverting of open waterways
(Pinkham, 6) and these initiatives warrant further examination. In the most extreme case, the city
council of Seattle, WA drafted legislation in early 2006 that will, if passed, ban construction that
interferes with streams that have the potential to be daylighted on the site (Stiffler, 2006). Proponents
of the bill “…want to preserve the option to daylight in the future by ensuring that a developer cannot
place a building on top of a creek, whether that creek is temporarily in a culvert or not” (Stiffler, 2006).
At the other end of the spectrum lie measures such as Blacksburg, Virginia’s “Creek Overlay Zones”.
These zones outline buffers around local streams beyond which no development is allowed to take
place. There are important questions about the popularity and efficacy of such requirements, and
whether or not they can be retrofitted over streams that have already been put underground in
anticipation of future restoration.
37
References
Abbate, Michael. Letter to the Editor, June 2006. Landscape Architecture Magazine, pp. 15-17.
Brown, Ken and Schueler, Tom. “Urban Stream Repair Practices Manual No. 4”. Center for
Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Manual produced for the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Management, Washington, D.C., August 2004.
Gerson, Stephanie, S. Niazi, and J. Wardani. “Blackberry Creek Daylighting Project, Berkeley: Ten-Year
Post-Project Appraisal”. 2005. University of California Water Resources Center, Water Resources Center
Archives, University of California.
Gregg, Billy and Wenk, William. “Stormwater Gardens (Convey, Capture, and Reuse: Stormwater)”.
Landscape Journal, Special Issue, pp. 24-25, 1998.
Hession, Cully and T. Wynn. Biological Systems Engineering Department, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University. Personal communication, 2006.
James, William. “History of Water Supply”. “A Historical Perspective on the Development of Urban
Water Systems”. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 1998. www.soe.uoguelph.ca
Kalamazoo County Convention and Visitors Bureau. Kalamazoo, Michigan.
www.discoverkalamazoo.com
Levine, Adam. “From Creek to Sewer: A brief overview of topographical change in Philadelphia”.
Philadelphia Water Department, Philadelphia, PA, 2005. www.phillyh2o.org
National Park Service. “Giving New Life to Streams in Rural City Centers”. Indian Creek Brochure.
www.nps.gov
Newman, Peter. “Sustainability and the Urban Water System”. Institute for Science and Technology
Policy, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, 2000. wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au/publications
Pinkham, Richard. “Daylighting: New Life for Buried Streams”. Rocky Mountain Institute, Colorado,
2000. www.rmi.org
Poole, Kathy. “Wet Lands: Civic Stormwater + Contingent Spaces”. Landscape Journal, Special Issue,
pp. 28-30, 1998.
State Environmental Resource Center, www.serconline.org
Stiffler, Lisa. “City Asked to Protect Creeks in Culverts”. Seattle Post-Intelligencer January 12, 2006:
Local.
Strang, Gary. “Infrastructure as Landscape”. Theory in Landscape Architecture: A Reader, pp. 220-
226, article originally published in 1996.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), “Cost Estimates for Stormwater Systems”,
National Risk Management Research Library, Systems Analysis Research, www.epa.gov
38
“Urban Stream Restoration: A Video Tour of Ecological Restoration Techniques, with Ann Riley.”
1998. Nolte Media, 405-A West College Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95401, 707-544-0499, Fax: 707-
579-3902, www.noltemedia.com.
Williams, Kennon. Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects. Personal communication, 2006.
APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL CASE STUDIESLOCATION Watershed Flow rates Length daylighted Additional stream length Costs Primary Objectives Secondary Objectives
West CoastCalifornia 5 cfs avg. annual flowJolly Giant Creek 1.7 sq. mi./ rural and 128 cfs annual peak 160 linear feet 570 ft. surface restored $120,000 plus Create 'outdoor classroom' on high school property; Links multiple daylighting projectsArcata, CA ('91, '95, '97) urban 250 cfs 100-yr peak lots of donated restore and older, dewatered stream channel; and restoration reaches
materials & labor create a new public park
Strawberry Creek 2.0 sq.mi/urban and 2-6 cfs avg annual flow 200 linear feet ~$50,000 Transform abandoned railyard into public parkBerkeley, CA (1984) university campus 800-1000 cfs 100-yr
peak flow
Codornices Creek 1.5 sq.mi/ urban 2-6 cfs avg annual flow 400 linear feet $33,000 plus lots Stop parking lot construction & re-orient new building;Berkeley, CA (1994) 800-1000 cfs 100-yr of donated material restore creek for salmon and human use
peak flow and labor
Blackberry Creek 0.3 sq.mi/ urban 15 cfs 1.5-yr peak flow 250 linear feet $144,000 Remove culvert that flooded schoolyard; reduce create outdoor classroom andBerkeley, CA (1995) 220 cfs 100-yr peak flood damage provide a better local park
Baxter Creek 0.25 sq.mi/residential N/A 250 linear feet N/A Replace failing stormwater drains Create open stream in local parkEl Cerrito, CA (1996)
Washington StateOmak Creek 140 sq.mi/ range 1 cfs seasonal low flow 1,500 linear feet $788,000 ($300K Reduce flood hazard caused by a damaged culvert Improve fish passage and streamOmak, WA (1998) land and commercial 30 cfs bankfull flow for arch culvert) and reopen a closed, flood-damaged lumber mill function; incremental flow
forestry 900 cfs 100-yr peak introduction techniques
Valley Creek 4.2 sq.mi/ forested 15 cfs avg base flow 490 linear feet introduced a 2.8 acre open $1 million Fill a defunct log moving pond and restore original Create new habitat andPort Angeles, WA ('97) and urban 120 cfs 2-yr peak water estuary estuary, saving $150,000 per year recreational park around estuary
545 cfs 100-yr peak
LOCATION Watershed Flow rates Length daylighted Additional stream length Costs Primary Objectives Secondary Objectives
West CoastWashington StateJenkins Creek 1.6 sq.mi/ rural and 3.3 cfs mean annual 800 linear feet $645,000, incl. Remove pipes that prevented fish passage; improve Reduce flooding and controlPhase I mid-density suburban 39 cfs avg peak flow easement purchase stream habitats for spawning salmonids flow from additional developmentsMaple Valley, WA ('94) 55 cfs 100-yr peak
Washington StateJenkins Creek 0.6 sq.mi/rural and 1.7 cfs mean annual 700 linear feet $400,000 Remove pipes that prevented fish passage; improve Daylight stream channel inPhase II low-density suburban 6.8 cfs avg peak flow stream habitats for spawning salmonids county park; educate residents
7/10/2007
APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL CASE STUDIESMaple Valley, WA ('96) 24 cfs 100-yr peak about proper stream vegetation
* low summer flows * and lawn maintenance practices
MidwestIllinoisKilgoblin Wetland 1.2 sq. mi/ rural and N/A; perennial flow 300 linear feet $55,000 Daylight a tributary to Flint Creek; improve water Create a small wetland near anBarrington, IL (1995) urban quality downstream; remove existing culverts industrial area
Embarrass Creek <1 sq. mi/suburban N/A; ephemeral in ~4,000 linear feet N/A Deliberate creation of a park with a newly dug stream Remove drain tiles from oldUrbana, IL (early 1970s) dry summers channel in drained farm fields; re-established some agricultural lands
of the headwaters of Embarass Creek
7/10/2007
APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL CASE STUDIESLOCATION Watershed Flow rates Length daylighted Additional stream length Costs Primary Objectives Secondary Objectives
MidwestKansasCow Creek 1.5 sq.mi/urban <30 cfs design flow 800 linear feet $1.25 million for Reduce pending costs of replacing a bridge that ran Created a new urban park andHutchinson, KS (1997) >700 cfs 100-yr peak stream/park directly on top of Cow Creek bike path
MichiganArcadia Creek 7.4 sq.mi/ urban <5 cfs seasonal low flow 1,550 linear feet stormwater basin built $7.5 million Flood relief and downtown business redevelopment Park and canals in a CBDKalamazoo, MI (1995) 1,015 cfs 100-yr peak
MichiganGrand River Cap Removal 163 sq. miles n/a 300 linear feet $1,100,000 Prevent drowning deaths Promote 'waterfront' developmentJackson, MI (1998) to attract more businesses
MinnesotaPhalen Creek 2.4 sq.mi/high- 2 cfs controlled flow 2,100 feet includes surface pond N/A Create stream amenity for a park by removing a Built several sediment/ detainmentSt. Paul, MN (1987) density residential (base flow unknown) culvert destroyed by a storm ponds along stream's length
and industrial ("diversion structure")Partial-flow daylighting done
SouthGeorgiaShoal Creek Trib (1994) 0.15 sq.mi/ medium 1.5 cfs seasonal low flow 200 linear feet $14,500 Remove collapsed culvert & restore small sectionDeKalb County, GA density residential 225 cfs 100-yr peak of stream
VirginiaPimmit Run Trib 0.03 sq.mi/forested ephemeral creek 50-100 linear feet N/A Remove undersized pipe that overflowed in stormsMcLean, VA (mid-90s) ** RESIDENTIAL ** <0.02 cfs seasonal and erode the gravel driveway
>7 cfs large storms
LOCATION Watershed Flow rates Length daylighted Additional stream length Costs Primary Objectives Secondary Objectives
SouthVirginia"The Dell" 150 acre/suburban 1.25 cfs base flow 1,200 linear feet ~ $700,000 Create campus amenity; allow new stream to Use site as a floodplainCharlottesville, VA (2004) ** college campus ** 190 cfs 100-yr peak deposit sediment on site, slow major flows
MassachusettsWest Ox Pasture Brook 0.35 sq.mi./suburban small perennial stream 85 linear feet $1,200 Backyard stream restoration; riparian habitat creation Saved money on a home septicRowley, MA (1999) on residential property system
7/10/2007
APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL CASE STUDIES
New YorkDarbee Brook 1.5 sq.mi/agriculture 0.5 cfs seasonal low flow 330 linear feet 160 feet of new channel $9,000 Remove deteriorating culvert that prevented fish New environmental science Roscoe, NY (1996) and residential 30-40 cfs annual peak (this was removed (this is the total length of passage and damaged school playing fields; summer camp at site; HS level
**SCHOOL SITE ** culvert length) stream that is daylighted) FEMA provided funds after huge flood damage water chemistry class started;occurred, to "prevent damage from any future flooding" other science curricula additions
7/10/2007
APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL CASE STUDIESLOCATION Hydrologic Studies Design Elements Monitoring Evaluation Method Key Contacts Comments Park
West Coast sedimentation basinCalifornia flood frequency tables recontoured floodplain conducted every year by high vegetation counts Lewis Armin-Holland sediment basin has been dredged several YesJolly Giant Creek channel engineering new channel geometry school and local university fish spawning counts Redwood Community Action Agency times since its construction; reportedArcata, CA (91, 95, 97) revegetation plans stormwater detention basin biology students (RCAA) improved flood control and erosion control
none reported;Strawberry Creek analyzed channel width, upland hillocks None officially reported; considered a success Douglas Wolfe & Gary Mason, City officials initially resistant and fearful; YesBerkeley, CA (1984) depth, and meander swales (what type?) maintenance program using low- for humans and Wolfe Mason Associates (LAR's) Today's technology will probably not allow
upstream; soil analysis in-stream boulders income high school students in property; not known Urban Creeks Council for rip-rap stabilization and concrete slabsrip-rap bank protection job training program about ecology ASLA - Design Merit Award, 1995 left in-channel; no followup monitoring
Codornices Creek none reported original meander used None officially reported; None reported Urban Creeks Council Project not possible w/o thousands of hours YesBerkeley, CA (1994) small floodplain installed volunteers maintain plantings; Waterways Retoration Institute of volunteer labor; catalyst for future upstream
new vegetation planted various birds and macroinvert's Ecocity Builders (Richard Register) and downstream daylighting that will getseen, along with some mature Wolfe Mason Associates (LAR's) rid of some culverts for fish passagesteelhead upstream; frogs, snakes
Blackberry Creek upstream reach measure- 4 shallow rock weirs; None officially reported; None reported Urban Creeks Council "Success" defined by popularity of newly YesBerkeley, CA (1995) ments: velocity, bankfull fascines, brush layering, elementary school children identify Waterways Restoration Institute created park and tot-lots adjacent to new
discharge, original pole cuttings, and erosion organisms in the restored creek City of Berkeley Land. Architect stream; no indication if flood reduction hasstream meander fabrics; boulders on outer and learn about its connection to Wolfe Mason Associates (LAR's) occurred since daylighting
edges of meander bends larger watershed
Baxter Creek None reported meander bends added; None officially reported; None reported Urban Creeks Council Initial project engineers did a poor design, YesEl Cerrito, CA (1996) "step-pool" construction; maintenance performed by local Waterways Restoration Institute using V-channels, straight lenghts, and
fascines, fabric, and resident volunteers rip-rap along the banks; all were replacedplantings to control erosion
Washington StateOmak Creek Expedited analysis of new channel geometry; None officially reported; None reported Colville Confederated Tribes Woody material for in-stream structures NoOmak, WA (1998) reference reaches only low-flow & bankfull chanels; No maintenance activities reported Ridolfi Engineers provided by damaged lumber mill;
re-established a floodplain; Arch deck ("bottomless culvert") added to23 ft wide steel arch deck aid fish passage thru a log-loading area
Valley Creek None reported removal of 400 ft of seawall; Students from Peninsula College None reported Parametrix, Inc (Port's engineering New stream is tidal; some estuary banks YesPort Angeles, WA (97) excavated 2.8 a in estuary; have documented increases in consultant); are marshes; protection from sea waves and
filled log pond with spoils; number of animal species and City of Port Angeles; storm surges required rip-rap protection inshading and beach logs; salmonid smolts in the estuary NTI, Polaris, and Lindberg Architects some locations; sewage pump station alsoroot masses; meander bends required rip-rap protection to remain
LOCATION Hydrologic Studies Design Elements Monitoring Evaluation Method Key Contacts Comments Park
West CoastWashington StateJenkins Creek Fish habitat survey; Incorporated daylighted Required by King County Dept of Stream structures Ken Nilsen, King County Surface Public reaction favorable, incl. golfers; NoPhase 1 Wetland, weir, detention waterway as a hazard in local Development & Environmental condition report; Water Management Division In golf course, gradient was too low forMaple Valley, WA (94) pond, and culvert ID along golf course; Services for 3 years; Vegetation counts (it alone funded the project entirely velocities to flush sediments from gravel beds
creek; Arch culverts beneath golf cart Fish species counts through a "surface water charge" in the reach; much of channel designed onRoute feasability study; bridge; billed semi-annually along with "50% exceedance flow" that typifies flows atGeotechnical study for Clay layer added below surface property-tax assessments. critical times for salmonidssuitability of new bridge; to keep stream flowing in Residences pay a flat fee ofHydraulic modeling of summer; holes added for cool $84/year (mid-1990's)channel geometries spring water to trickle in
Washington StateJenkins Creek see above re-creation of floodplain Required by King County Dept of Stream structures King County Surface Water Considerable attention given to optimum YesPhase 11 stream channel development Development & Environmental condition report; Management Division channel depth and velocity, spawning beds,
7/10/2007
APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL CASE STUDIESMaple Valley, WA (96) vegetated biofiltration swales Services for 3 years; Vegetation counts (Ken Nilsen, project engineer) rearing areas, refugia pools, grading of
lip above floodplain captures Fish species counts pool/glide sequences, appropriate spawningsediments & nutrients from substrate, root wads, trees, and control logs.golf course
MidwestIllinoisKilgoblin Wetland none reported graded depression for 1-acre none reported in wetland; macroinvertebrate John Heinz, public works director At first glance, this appears to be a good NoBarrington, IL (1995) wetland; sediment trap at downstream measures of macro- measurements Natural Areas Ecosystems Mgmt. project; however, out of over 1,800 feet that
upper end that can be dredged invertebrates improved from "fair" (nothing specific were supposed to be daylighted, only 300and a weir to control water to "good". mentioned) feet were restored; the 'engineering' of the levels downstream; rip rap wetland does not appear to be too environ-
mentally sustainable, and the tall prairie grasses that were planted are seen as a problem' to be avoided
Embarrass Creek none reported a rough stream channel was none reported none reported Urbana Park District (Robin Hall) The Park District has its own taxing YesUrbana, IL (early 1970s) graded in low points of new maintenance limited to occasional authorities and self-funded the daylighting
park; allowed to meander and thinning and pruning of plants project.establish its own channel; This project restored an old stream channelplanted channel banks but that was not placed into pipes originally, butmost riparian vegetation is was simply drained away over time.volunteer colonies
7/10/2007
APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL CASE STUDIESLOCATION Hydrologic Studies Design Elements Monitoring Evaluation Method Key Contacts Comments Park
MidwestKansasCow Creek none reported 10-feet wide concrete channel none reported none reported Hal Munger, City engineer This project filled in the original creek bed YesHutchinson, KS (1997) that is 30 inches deep; (passes coliform standards for and replaced it with a new one that is not
Cow Creek's low gradient human contact, but is still posted really a creek; the result is a highly controlledled city to keep an armored against entry because of nearby and heavily built storm water canal and grassbed for sediment scraping children's water park) park with ornamental water features.
MichiganArcadia Creek none specifically reported 3 blocks of concrete channels none reported none reported Downtown Development Authority Due to large sediment loads and deposits YesKalamazoo, MI (1995) but vaguely referred to that are 20 ft wide x 12 ft deep STS Consultants, Ltd (engineering along the low gradient channel, most
open stormwater pond with firm that led the daylighting portion) maintenance costs are for sediment andgrassy slopes trash removal); withstands flows of a 500-yr6 weirs @ 1.5 ft deep along flood now; paid for itself in event revenueschannel length
MichiganGrand River Cap Removal none reported 300 feet of capped culvert was none reported none reported Michigan Department of Environmental This was an unusual daylighting project for NoJackson, MI (1998) removed; river banks were Quality unfortunate reasons; contaminated soils
stabilized found on site increased total costs; newstream' is only a concrete canal
MinnesotaPhalen Creek none reported 2 large underground culverts none specifically reported; none reported St. Paul Garden Club (Olivia Dodge) Considerable sediment deposits into the YesSt. Paul, MN (1987) open into 3 settling ponds; Biocide-treated water from brewer St. Paul Public Works Department stream and no dredging schedule is known.
flow diverter passes a constant has decreased in quantity since (Pat Byrne) This was a very unusual project in a weirdflow of 2 cfs into stream plant closed; macroinvertebrates location with unique site constraints; but
and amphibians reported. it has initiated several other nearby day-lighting and stormwater filtering projects
SouthGeorgiaShoal Creek Trib (1994) visual assessment of rock check dams during none reported; none reported DeKalb County Parks Dpt. Detailed breakdown of project/material costs YesDeKalb County, GA upstream reaches construction to catch sediment Vegetation reported to be doing Ginna Tiernan However, no cost comparison b/w doing this
(since stream was put later pushed down to make well and residents accepted the and replacing the broken culvert (which wasunderground in original weirs; planted bank stabilization wilder' look of the stream one of the stated goals - saving money)location, it didn't need rather than rip-raprelocation)
VirginiaPimmit Run Trib none reported series of log check dams; none reported none reported Michael Vergason, L.A. This was largely an aesthetic design on a NoMcLean, VA (mid-90s) runnel across pavement; residential property, including an open
existing drain pipes used for trickling water feature that needed regularoverflow events; vegetated flows to be availableswales; plastic lined step pools
LOCATION Hydrologic Studies Design Elements Monitoring Evaluation Method Key Contacts Comments Park
SouthVirginiaThe Dell Hydrologic modeling of new pools and riffles none officially reported, but none reported Nelson Byrd Woltz, Landscape Kept an existing 48" diameter storm pipe YesCharlottesville, VA (2004) 1-yr and 100-yr events log vanes in channel supposedly some local students Architects: Kennon Williams in place to capture major storm overflows;
stone overflow weir are looking at it BioHabitats: Vince Sortman a 100-year storm has 190 cfs; only 35 cfs2 infiltration rain gardens are allowed to pass through new stream.ball fields as floodplains This is probably more of a "partial flow"natural stone boulders at toe daylighting project
NortheastMassachusettsWest Ox Pasture Brook none reported grading of new stream banks; none reported none reported Tim Purinton (Rowley Conservation Due to lot configuration, septic system was NoRowley, MA (1999) banks mulched with hay and Commission) not relocated, so stream curved away from
planted with native species Parker River Clean Water Association original course to accommodate this;
7/10/2007
APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL CASE STUDIESBetty Lambright, landscape designer homeowners needed a lot of 'hand-holding' to
accept the final outcome
New YorkDarbee Brook a few measurements of shorter length of stream now; Documented fish entry into the Electrofishing samples NY Dept of Environmental Cost of replacing culvert was estimated at NoRoscoe, NY (1996) channel widths for main channel is 25 ft wide; main river and use of newly opened Conservation (DEC) $45,000-50,000….
representative riffles above in summer, ~ 2 ft wide channel itself (Ed Van Put and Jack Isaacs) New stream is less than ideal because itthe culvert Trout Unlimited (Jack Conyngham) does not have sufficient meander sinuousity
Roscoe Central School Superintend. or an appropriately sized floodplain(George Will)
7/10/2007
APPENDIX B: DETAILED COST BREAKDOWNS FOR SELECTED CASE STUDIES
Arcadia Creek, Kalamazoo, MITotal Costs: $7.5 million
$7.5 million - Downtown Development Authority (DDA)Environmental assessmentsEngineeringConstruction* A majority went to soil excavation and replacement
Additional:DDA issued bonds based on tax-increment financing: those bonds are now being repaid by property-tax revenues from zonePrivate philanthropic organizations helped reduce costs to the city by funding certain property acquisitionsDDA pays maintenance costs at about $50,000 per year (remove silt, weeds, algae)City maintains ownership of the land to protect developers from potential environmental liabilities and problems related to the site.
Blackberry Creek, Berkeley, CATotal Costs: ~ $200,000
$144,000 (CA Dept. of Water Resources Urban Stream Restoration Program)PlanningPermittingGradingHauling away fillBurying excavated culvert on siteIrrigation installationConservation corps labor
$8,000 (Thousand Oaks Elementary School District)Fencing at top of steep sections and at headwalls
$15,000 (City of Berkeley, CA)Concrete workDrainagePlayground sandStaircase down to creek
Additional:A few thousand dollars in donated money for plants from local businessesDesign fees “reduced” but not listed specifically
Cow Creek, Hutchinson, KSTotal Costs: $4 million – Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA); Bridge Replacement & Transportation Program
$1.25 million - (ISTEA)Concrete channel and walking pathGrassy amphitheaterStageWater play area, fountains, water features
7/9/2007
APPENDIX B: DETAILED COST BREAKDOWNS FOR SELECTED CASE STUDIES
Darbee Brook, Roscoe, NYTotal Costs: $9,000
$9,000 - Trout UnlimitedEarthworkRevegetationFencing
Additional:Outdoor Life magazine donated money to cover nursery trees and shrubs, supplied at cost by Haledon Nursery in New Jersey
"The Dell", Charlottesville, VATotal Costs: ~ $700,000
Source of funding: n/aDetailed breakdown: n/a
$100,000 for original design study and plantings conducted by University Landscape Architecture Committee
Grand River Cap Removal, Jackson, MITotal Costs: ~ $1,100,000
$1,038,000 - Clean Michigan Initiative (CMI) FundCap cutting and removalExcavation of soil along river
$62,000 - CMI FundsRemoval and disposal of contaminated soils found during construction
Jenkins Creek, Maple Valley, WATotal Costs, Phase I: $645,000Total Costs, Phase II: $400,000
Phase I$289,000 for design, permitting, and right-of-way acquisition$335,200 for earthmoving, labor, channel and landscape materials, other construction expenses
Phase II$159, 300 for design and permitting$240, 700 for construction
All paid for by the King County Surface Water Management Division, which is self-funded by a "surface water charge" billed toresidents along with property-tax assessments.
7/9/2007
APPENDIX B: DETAILED COST BREAKDOWNS FOR SELECTED CASE STUDIES
Jolly Giant Creek, Arcata, CATotal Costs: $120,000
Arcata High School Project$25,000 grant - CA Department of Water Resources Urban Stream Restoration Program
Upstream Mill$50,000 grant - CA Department of Water Resources Urban Stream Restoration Program
Downstream Mill$45,000 grant - CA Department of Water Resources Urban Stream Restoration Program; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Challenge Cost-Share ProgramEarthmovingVarious materials
Additional:The city of Arcata contributed up to $40,000 worth of equipment, materials, and staff timeThe National Tree Trust provided many trees for free
Pimmit Run, McClean, VATotal Costs: n/a
West Ox Pasture Brook, Rowley, MATotal Costs: $1,200
$800 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partners for Wildlife Program$400 - Rowley Conservation Commission
Detailed breakdown not availablePlants provided by the Parker River Clean Water Association
7/9/2007
Appendix C: Sources of Funding by State (as listed in case study literature)
California
CA Department of Water Resources Urban Streams Restoration Program
CA Department of Fish and Game
City of Berkeley, California
Georgia
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grant – Clean Water Act Section 319 (h) Program
DeKalb County Roads and Drainage Department – residents’ drainage-improvement fund
Illinois
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Massachusetts
Rowley Conservation Commission
Parker River Clean Water Association
o Essex County Ecology Center
o Massachusetts Riverways Program
o Massachusetts Environmental Trust
Michigan
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality - Clean Michigan Initiative (CMI) Fund
Kalamazoo Downtown Development Authority – bonds issued on tax-increment financing
New York
Trout Unlimited, New York chapter
Washington
Congressionally funded state salmon restoration program
King County Surface Water Management Division – “surface water charge”
1
Appendix C: Sources of Funding by State (as listed in case study literature) Federal / Private Sources
American Forests
Clallam County Physicians (WA)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – only when flood damage is a problem
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
National Park Service - Rivers & Trails Program
Natural Resources Conservation Service
National Tree Trust
Orvis Company (fishing equipment manufacturer)
Prospect Hill Foundation
Trout and Salmon Foundation
Trout Unlimited (state and local chapters)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Challenge Cost-Share Program
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Partners for Wildlife Program
Virginia Mason Hospital Association (WA)
APPENDIX D: PROPOSED DAYLIGHTING PROJECTS
LOCATION Watershed Additional Site Info Length daylighted Additional stream length Costs Primary Objectives Secondary ObjectivesWest CoastCaliforniaDerby Creek 0.25 sq.mi/ highly UC Berkeley campus 350 ft to be 100 extra feet added ~$500,000 UC Berkeley campus amenity; hydraulic performanceBerkeley, CA urbanized removed
Strawberry Creek 1.4 sq.mi/campus Encompasses much 6 blocks upstream N/A Add to existing Strawberry Creek daylighted portionBerkeley, CA of Univ. of California from original 1984
campus Strawberry Creek
ColoradoWesterly Creek 1,900 acres Lowry Air Force Base 1.2 miles, either 0.6 miles dechannelized N/A Establish an ecological and recreational corridorDenver, CO 4,500 acres Stapleton Int. Airport fully or partially and restored along Westerly Creek on old air force base and old
daylighted airport
MidwestIdaho n/a; urbanized Downtown business 5 city blocks to A total of 6 acres of new $9 million Catalyst for downtown revitalization in the historic Restore creek for community trailIndian Creek Population: 31,000 district be removed habitat and greenbelt in the district system and annual creek festivalCaldwell, ID 150 cfs base flow center of downtown
Caldwell; 3.2 miles of trails
IllinoisSouth Branch of the 2.5 sq. mi Bridge & culvert site *Replace a culvert N/A Reduce water quality impacts of culvert Remove fish passage barriersWaukegan River with a bridge*Waukegan, IL (1999)
MinnesotaBassett Creek 100 acre Housing project site N/A N/A Remove damaged buildings from poor soil area and Create a central stream corridorMinneapolis, MN (2000) redevelopment site allow some flow from water tunnels to flow again on and new park
the surface
7/10/2007
APPENDIX D: PROPOSED DAYLIGHTING PROJECTS
LOCATION Watershed Additional Site Info Length daylighted Additional stream length Costs Primary Objectives Secondary ObjectivesSouthNorth CarolinaRocky Branch N/A College campus site 250 feet minimum 6,100 feet of restored $5 million Campus greenway and stream restoration project Replace 3 culverts under roadsRaleigh, NC (2000) stream geometry, banks… (connect to city greenway system) with bridges for sub-grade crossing
for people and wildlife
NortheastMassachusettsMuddy River N/A; Boston area Muddy River runs thru N/A; culverts at N/A Prevent future flooding caused by pre-OlmstedBoston, MA (1999) Boston's "Emerald 3 sites must be culverting and dense urban development
Necklace" park system enlarged or removed
Wyckoff Country Club N/A; on a golf course Stream will cross a 350 linear feet projected to be 'low' Part of golf course's pond and wetland restorationHolyoke, MA (2000) fairway, make a new projects
water hazard
ConnecticutHarbor Brook 10 sq.mi/urban and Located in a 1/2 mile 2,000 linear feet Restore 4 miles of river $30 million Address flood threats to several hundred commercial Build a new floodplain at lowerMeriden, CT (1999) suburban double box culvert under and industrial buildings elevation than natural one
downtown Meriden
Additional Projects Not Yet Researched (discussion stages as of 2000)Berkeley, CA Village CreekSan Luis Obispo, CABristol, CTCambridge, MAFoxboro, MAWorcester, MAProvidence, RI Waterplace Park Already completedPhiladelphia, PAPortland, ORSalt Lake City, UT City CreekJanesville, WI
7/10/2007
APPENDIX D: PROPOSED DAYLIGHTING PROJECTS
LOCATION Hydrologic Studies Design Elements Monitoring Evaluation Method Key Contacts Comments ParkWest CoastCaliforniaDerby Creek not reported not reported, but retention of none reported none reported Wolfe Mason AssociatesBerkeley, CA lawn and existing trees listed Waterways Restoration Institute
Strawberry CreekBerkeley, CA yes, but not specified see writeup for "5 Scenarios" none reported none reported Wolfe Mason Associates
design options City of Berkeley, CA
ColoradoWesterly Creek none reported keep an existing 0.6 mile-long none reported none reported City of Denver redevelopment Denver, CO culvert at a detention basin, authorities (no one specific listed)
remove several other culvertsbelow basin that flood
MidwestIdaho none reported not yet specified but includes none reported none reported National Park Service's Rivers & Partnership launched in 2003; first YesIndian Creek a greenway / trail system Trails Program restoration phase completed in 2005;Caldwell, ID $225,000 grant awarded to Caldwell to
construct the first 3.2 miles of trails andbike lanes connecting downtown services
IllinoisSouth Branch of the none reported natural stream bottom restored none reported none reported Waukegan Park DistrictWaukegan River natural channel restored Illinois EPAWaukegan, IL (1999) fish ladder upstream of road US EPA
MinnesotaBassett Creek none reported, but master not specified, but runoff that is none reported none reported City of Minneapolis, Combines daylighting w/ high densityMinneapolis, MN (2000) planning for the entire site currently directed into the pipes Near North Side Neighborhood development; stormwater infiltration systems
took place will be sent to the surface Redevelopment Project and other runoff methods will be incorporatedstream instead into the private properties
7/10/2007
APPENDIX D: PROPOSED DAYLIGHTING PROJECTS
LOCATION Hydrologic Studies Design Elements Monitoring Evaluation Method Key Contacts Comments ParkSouthNorth CarolinaRocky Branch not specified, but restore proper channel geometry none reported none reported North Carolina State University YesRaleigh, NC (2000) probably done bioengineer stream banks "Rocky Branch Greenway Project"*campus design* expand floodplain
riparian buffer zonestormwater BMP's in watershed
NortheastMassachusettsMuddy River yes, but not specified Some combo of dredging, none reported none reported US Army Corp of Engineers Citizen groups promoting restoration ofBoston, MA culvert enlargement, and FEMA the Emerald Necklace are highly interested
daylighting Boston Water & Sewer Commisison in the daylighting option the most
Wyckoff Country Club none reported none specified none reported none reported Wyckoff Country ClubHolyoke, MA (2000)
ConnecticutHarbor Brook none reported, but new floodplain; new bankfull none reported, however deliberate Milone & MacBroomMeriden, CT (1999) probably done channel with instream fish steps to reduce non-point-source
habitat; meanders through pollution are indicated (whichvegetated floodway; recreational implies monitoring activities)trail; removal of one small damand removal or non-replacementof 8 bridges
7/10/2007